AW: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results
g.ochsner at revolistic.com
Wed Dec 9 12:51:09 CET 2009
as far as I see Alexander (nic.at) finally (7. Dezember 2009 13:54) wrote:
> Looking at the options that we have now, I agree that none of them are
> perfect, but I think in the long run, the best thing we can do for "ß"
> - declare it PVALID in IDNAbis *and* normatively disallow mapping of
> PVALID characters
> - leave any policy decision about how to handle the potential transition
> to the respective zone admin / registry / community.
In your document he is listed as "neither".
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] Im Auftrag von Vint Cerf
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Dezember 2009 10:09
> An: idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Betreff: Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results
> Attached is a PDF of the spreadsheet I maintained during the past
> week's discussions. If you detect errors or omissions, kindly advise.
> It is also important to note that the Unicode Technical Committee
> responded to a formal request for their opinion that Sharp-S and Final
> Sigma should be PVALID
> On the basis of this information, I think we have rough consensus in
> the IDNABIS Working Group that Sharp-S and Final Sigma should be made
> The consensus call did not refer to the joiner/non-joiners and I
> continue to believe that the WG has long since concluded these should
> stay in CONTEXTJ
> With regard to transition, there is considerable diversity among the
> WG as to preferences. In an absolute sense, the specification of a
> protocol (the set of proposed RFCs developed during IDNABIS WG effort)
> is independent of its introduction, so it might be argued that the WG
> does not need to specify an adoption or transition plan. As a
> practical matter, of course, something has to happen for the results
> to get into use.
> Perhaps a small step forward would be for the editor of Rationale to
> make reference to the need for operators (I use this term in its most
> general sense to include registries, registrars, makers of software
> that rely on the DNS, etc) to assess their adoption plans in the
> context of an environment that includes a mix of IDNA2003 and IDNA2008
> "speakers" for a period of time likely to be measurable in years.
> I will try to produce a possible transition synthesis drawn from
> various suggestions in the WG discussion on transition - however, that
> will take another couple of days as I am tied up with all-day meetings
> today and tomorrow.
> This message, however, is intended to convey to the WG and the AD that
> the chair believes we have rough consensus on making Sharp-S and Final
> Sigma PVALID in IDNA2008.
> Vint Cerf
More information about the Idna-update